Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 19, 2006 6:24am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Wolfgang's Vault Faces Litigation

I must respectfully disagree with those that argue the artists have rights to a performance similar to the rights that those have with respect to a product. A performance, by defn, includes the audience, and the 'product' in this case is not the same as a traditional product produced and protected by historic copyright law. Pat K? Other lawyers or those with experience, please post to educate us.

My point is that I respect the performers, and want them to 'make a living' like everyone else, BUT the exhange of their product via avenues like the LMA does not entail damage to their income stream as such acts would to a traditional product. If anything, it enhances it. I simply do not buy that Jerry or Phil would have changed their tune (ha) seeing what has happened as a result of the electronic age--they recognized that the performance was a unique partnership between them and us, and I think they gave their blessings to us to do what we wanted to do with it when it was finished.

My overly simplistic view.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: BryanE Date: Dec 19, 2006 7:07am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Wolfgang's Vault Faces Litigation

WT-
I don't know the law, either, but I give you credit for a very interesting viewpoint.
Personally, I'll say that if they want the site to cease and desist, then that is certainly their prerogative to sue.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 19, 2006 7:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Wolfgang's Vault Faces Litigation

Agree; I just think it is a very interesting and complex situation, one that is difficult to see as anything other than 'ground breaking,' and I for one enjoy (!?) kicking it around and hearing what those in the legal profession and/or an actual court of law would argue on both sides.

It seems like so much new age nonsense to read my post above about the interaction between performer and audience in the production of the sound, BUT I do believe it to a point. What would a live album be without a crowd? It wouldn't exist. What about the money we paid to be there? What about the hall and the existing sound system? Does Bill G inc own the rights, in part, to the experience? What about the complicity of the band--all that Jerry ever said counts for something, and Bob directed folks with mics from the stage...

Fun.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: tigerbolt Date: Dec 19, 2006 7:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Wolfgang's Vault Faces Litigation

don't see what the problem is for the fans,i've seen about 90 percent of these shows on various download sites.what's with the prices on the photos,t-shirt,etc...$$$$,what a rip-off for snapping a photo.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: orchiddoctor Date: Dec 19, 2006 6:42am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Wolfgang's Vault Faces Litigation

It does violate copyright law. If a performer or venue bans taping or filming, then you have agreed to that ban by entering the venue or attending the event. In the case of pro sports--another performance--you cannot disseminate the performances without permission. You cannot photograph art in a musuem without permission. Permission is the key word.
The Dead crew used to cut mic lines in the early days. No meant no. And just because the fish has been removed from the stream and placed into the pond doesn't make catching it legal.

Truth be told, that doesn't stop folks from doing so; and I don't think that Bob Dylan is out there saying smash all the little bugs who dare sneak a recorder in and share a copy with a friend. The Dead broadcast shows in the Fall of 1971 in each market--partially paid for by Warner's. Great advertising (and great for collectors).

Very few performers care if you tape. And if it is broadcast, it is out there. But if an artist makes a sbd and does not wish it to be passed on or copied, that is their right--no grey area here. They played, they taped, they own.

The issue here falls into the following question: did the artists know BGP was taping, and did they consent? If they consented, did they agree to allow the music to be disseminated? If so, did they agree to allow it to be posted on a commercial for profit site? Maybe yes on the first one or two--but not beyond.

There is another issue: much of this was done back in the day when trades were made slowly and quietly. Now, it's all done with the press of a button, a thousand at a time.
When cds came out, all previous contracts had to be renegotiated. Electronic reproduction: a two sided sword.

What abput stolen tapes? Does that make them legal--being "freed" by theft? If I let you photograph me, does that mean that you can do whatever you wish with the photos? If I tape a rehearsel that is shitty, does that mean you can sneak a copy and embarass me in front of the whole cybercrowd? Can I follow you around and record your doings and put them on line without your knowledge or consent? Can I create a work of art and ask that you not tape or photograph it and pass it on? Can I create a work of art and say it is my creation, my intellectual property and forbid you to use it, copy it, or otherwise disseminate it. Yes, I can. That's what copyright law is for.

Please note a loophole. Copyright protection does eventually expire--only so many renewals and it falls into the public domain.

While I would argue that there is or was no harm in trading material that made its way into the underground, I would argue that posting it online is another issue altogether, a tricky issue with no simple answers. Same questions: intent and reality.

And, only someone with total disrespect for the artist would argue that someone could take tapes made privately and clandestinely with no intent to distribute and place them on for profit websites. Sure, there's no charge for listening, but you can download them if you know how. And it's a ply to get you to buy merchandise. Is is commercial, and that is over the line in both spirit and law. If you care about the musicians, then you will understand the problem.

Wolfgang is not a site like arhive or dime or etree or shnflac. They are places where the tribe can gather and share electronically. And if an artist wants his material removed, it is done so immediately. That is copyright law at work. Read the Dead's statement, read Pearl Jam's, read dozens of others.

Something isn't yours because you say it is. You cannot steal my furniture, you cannot steal my music. You cannot walk into my nursery and take an orchid nor can you take pictures without permission. You cannot jump on a woman's body and force yourself on her. Bad analogies? No. Those who steal from artists rape them.

Respect the artists' wishes, or disrespect the artist.

The choice is yours.


That being said, a lot of great 1969 stuff seeding now on shnflac.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Dec 19, 2006 7:58am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Wolfgang's Vault Faces Litigation

OD...Here, the devil is in the details. As you say, it lies the contractual language between the bands and BGP.

There are two things that have not been mentioned here. First, is that as the Producer, like a movie producer for example, Graham had certain rights that may superceed the rights of the performer, since it was his investment at risk.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, these concerts were largely produced before Al Gore invented the internet. Fact is, that the bands and BGP had no clear vision of the available technology in 2006. At the time it may have been fairly easy to cede performance rights, as the subsequent marketing and distribution costs for these shows would be significant compared to today.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 19, 2006 7:41am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Wolfgang's Vault Faces Litigation

Agree with much of what you say; my point of quibble is with the term 'my music,' as I see a performance as just that: the performer and the crowd enter into an agreement to be there that at some level implies consent for sharing. I can take my memory, and if I taped from the soundboard with permission at the time, that too. I agree that soundboards produced entirely by the crew and the band are the property of the band.

I just see that the connection between the crowd and the performer in a concert setting is more substantive than it is for a painting, stage production or a football game. A fine line and a slippery slope to be sure.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: tigerbolt Date: Dec 19, 2006 7:53am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Wolfgang's Vault Faces Litigation

true wt,hey did the dvd-audio thread help?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 19, 2006 9:10am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Wolfgang's Vault Faces Litigation

Absolutely...cannot wait to find out my shns and CDs are a thing of the past and I have to burn a whole new set of materials for the new age dawning...

Hey--maybe I can sue someone for the implication that my downloads had value (implied because they limit my access) when burned as CDs with wavs.